Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
vanfullofretards

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

Noam Chomsky discussing Libertarian Socialism:

 

 

I think he made some very strong points about what is deemed "Libertarian" in this country, and how words have lost their meaning.

 

Sure, libertarianism is traditionally a left wing movement. It is focussed on individual equality and opportunity rather than demographic based equality produced by the barrel of a gun. A shift by the center-left over the course of the 19th and 20th century from being pro equality to pro interventionism, abandoned libertarians, or classical liberals, to defend individual rights to do with property what they wish without harming others. Thus defending individuals rights to engage in business as they like.

 

These kinds of typological arguments are one of the great sore points for political theorists, exemplified by this debate; do classical liberals fight to reclaim the name 'liberal' from those who have come to see it as representing social democracy, or do they abandon the name and reclassify themselves as libertarian? Personally I don't see it as so important to claim any particular title. I think it is important to point out errors, such as those who might claim libertarianism is a product of the extreme right, but if the weight of the world has moved against you then perhaps its best to roll with the punch.

 

In this case I think Chomsky is taking a small liberty himself in the interpretation of Adam Smith etc. To my understanding Smith was not advocating that in order for markets to work each actor must start from a level playing field, this seems to me a modern 'liberal' interpretation of Smith, instead he was talking about markets delivering equality in opportunity as trade is essentially blind and does not favour the traditionally privileged. I don't need political connections to buy a smart phone, for example, smart phone providers are desperate to market as widely as possible as they see one persons money to be as good as the next.

 

This prompts a point that I find hard to believe that statists do not recognise, in a democratic system; if you empower the state to privileged those you deem worthy you also inevitably empower the state to privilege those that others deem worthy too. This is as you have implicitly approved of the mechanism to privilege some over others regardless of the particular outcome. Social democrats want the state to be empowered to deliver welfare, bolstered unionism, and protected industry, but in doing so they also facilitate the desire of nationalist conservatives who want the state to be empowered to deliver law and order and militarism etc. Democracy as a political system simply does not enable the delivery of all of what one voting demographic wants and none of the other. This is as, by design, it is a coercive system which acts on behalf of the majority against the will of the minority. In this way it is naive to want the state to act in one way, but reject the state acting in another. You must either accept the state acts, or it does not. Thus in order to truthfully advocate democracy, the acts of the state must be accepted, historically, on aggregate. You must both believe that the sum total of the good outweighs the bad, and that the bad is justifiable in order to achieve some good.

 

Personally I don't find this argument to be satisfactory, hence the fact that I reject the state entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Sure, libertarianism is traditionally a left wing movement. It is focussed on individual equality and opportunity rather than demographic based equality produced by the barrel of a gun. A shift by the center-left over the course of the 19th and 20th century from being pro equality to pro interventionism, abandoned libertarians, or classical liberals, to defend individual rights to do with property what they wish without harming others. Thus defending individuals rights to engage in business as they like.

 

These kinds of typological arguments are one of the great sore points for political theorists, exemplified by this debate; do classical liberals fight to reclaim the name 'liberal' from those who have come to see it as representing social democracy, or do they abandon the name and reclassify themselves as libertarian? Personally I don't see it as so important to claim any particular title. I think it is important to point out errors, such as those who might claim libertarianism is a product of the extreme right, but if the weight of the world has moved against you then perhaps its best to roll with the punch.

 

In this case I think Chomsky is taking a small liberty himself in the interpretation of Adam Smith etc. To my understanding Smith was not advocating that in order for markets to work each actor must start from a level playing field, this seems to me a modern 'liberal' interpretation of Smith, instead he was talking about markets delivering equality in opportunity as trade is essentially blind and does not favour the traditionally privileged. I don't need political connections to buy a smart phone, for example, smart phone providers are desperate to market as widely as possible as they see one persons money to be as good as the next.

 

This prompts a point that I find hard to believe that statists do not recognise, in a democratic system; if you empower the state to privileged those you deem worthy you also inevitably empower the state to privilege those that others deem worthy too. This is as you have implicitly approved of the mechanism to privilege some over others regardless of the particular outcome. Social democrats want the state to be empowered to deliver welfare, bolstered unionism, and protected industry, but in doing so they also facilitate the desire of nationalist conservatives who want the state to be empowered to deliver law and order and militarism etc. Democracy as a political system simply does not enable the delivery of all of what one voting demographic wants and none of the other. This is as, by design, it is a coercive system which acts on behalf of the majority against the will of the minority. In this way it is naive to want the state to act in one way, but reject the state acting in another. You must either accept the state acts, or it does not. Thus in order to truthfully advocate democracy, the acts of the state must be accepted, historically, on aggregate. You must both believe that the sum total of the good outweighs the bad, and that the bad is justifiable in order to achieve some good.

 

Personally I don't find this argument to be satisfactory, hence the fact that I reject the state entirely.

 

This is why the moderators should be ashamed of themselves for banning you, because that was one of the most constructive though provoking posts I've seen in this entire thread. I've had my disagreements and quarrels with you on here, but you've really earned my respect (not that it means anything) by showing how conversation can and should occur here on 12oz without all of the insults and trash talking.

 

In response to what you've said... I agree with your statement that there is no middle road and it must be decided as to whether or not the state acts or does not act. This is why I have trouble identifying exactly where I personally stand on issues such as social welfare/socialism... because on one end I empathize with the arguments of those social democrats but at the same time understand unbalanced empowerment you're speaking of. That's what I'm afraid of, and like you said it WOULD be used to deliver authoritarian legislation/militarism, etc. It's why I support Ron Paul, who makes the decisions that the state does NOT act and stands by his decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your statement that there is no middle road and it must be decided as to whether or not the state acts or does not act. This is why I have trouble identifying exactly where I personally stand on issues such as social welfare/socialism... because on one end I empathize with the arguments of those social democrats but at the same time understand unbalanced empowerment you're speaking of. That's what I'm afraid of, and like you said it WOULD be used to deliver authoritarian legislation/militarism, etc. It's why I support Ron Paul, who makes the decisions that the state does NOT act and stands by his decision.

 

The social democratic intent is wonderful, who doesn't want equality and help for those who have struggled in life? It is their lack of understanding of the mechanism they wish to deliver their intent that is their failing. The state is a beast born of militarism, it is hierarchical and coercive by nature. No manor of reform can change these fundamentals. The state is the state, to remove these elements would be to destroy it in favour of another form. In contrast, anything piled on top of this dreadful core leaves these fundamental issues un-addressed. This this is a point that will never be acknowledged by statists as they cannot see the forest for the trees. In a frenzied quest to address their unending micro concerns, they ignore a macro understanding of state based democracy.

 

I should point out that Ron Paul does not believe the state should not act, unless he does so privately. He instead is aware of the problems of state action and seeks, pragmatically, to reduce their harms. He is a true libertarian, not an anarchist.

 

This is the point that I diverge from libertarianism. Having drawn from a common theoretical perspective, I conclude that any state would inevitably use its coercive power to incrementally enlarge itself regardless of structure, constitution, etc. A state reserves the right to employ coercive force aggressively rather than defensively. A state is not self fuelling, it relies on resources it must pilfer rather than produce. In this way, a state has a strong incentive to find new ways to win approval for its privileged position through the use of this coercive ability, yet has a weak incentive to address the past and present problems it has caused in its aftermath. Simply put, it has a strong incentive to expand and a weak incentive to contract. For these reasons I am not a libertarian but an anarchist.

 

Btw, thanks for the positive comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last quick comment, I think Chomsky is misleading when he talks about the success of the interventionist approach in developing economies. When he speaks about interventionism, I assume he means domestically, he draws a false correlation. He ignores the foreign interventionism/imperialism that has given most of the developed economies a drastic 'zero sum game' advantage over the slave bearing, colonised, and vanquished nations. These are all aspects that have facilitated the early capital accumulation aiding western/Japanese development. Considering Chomsky is a champion of anti-imperialism, I am surprised he presented his argument this way. Moreover, it is not that undeveloped nations have a hands off approach that is preventing their development, quite the contrary. It is that their political instability, risk of confiscation etc, that dissuades investors who will build up capital and thus increase economic capacity. For example, tell me who in their right mind would want to start a large scale venture in Zimbabwe right now? Zimbabwe will remain dirt poor so long as Mugabe, or any other leader, insists on using coercive force to intervene through price controls and other methods of veiled thuggery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of anarchist are you, because I know anarchism has different categories. Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of anarchist are you, because I know anarchism has different categories. Please explain.

 

I am a Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalist. That said, I would argue for a gradual deconstruction of the state rather than a rapid one. I think that any sudden, drastic, change would be more likely to push people towards even greater tyranny. Perhaps in this sense you could call me a conservative anarcho-capitalist (haha). If you look on the Mises.org site, they have listed most, if not all, of Rothbard's books. Probably 'For a New Liberty' would be a good place to start if you were interested.

 

Up until a few years ago I was a staunch social-democrat with Marxist leanings. The shift began to occur when I gained a better understanding of economics. All of a sudden it became clear there was a stark consistency between classical liberal political theory, economics, and moral philosophy. An inter-disciplinary consistency that is largely unavailable to other ideological traditions. I retain a neo-marxist/post-modern approach to power analysis. I am very interested in what I see as a largely unrecognised synthesis between Foucault and Heyak, for example. So my position is nuanced rather than unabashed libertarianism. My sticking points in making the transition were really welfare related. I found it difficult to accept that those who are disadvantaged in life would not suffer, then I came to see that the method of welfare delivery causes as many problems as it prevents. I have posted a bit about this, but I think it has mostly been deleted.

 

 

What exactly are these social-democratic leanings you have? It might be beneficial to you to hash them out and could be good fodder for discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is he going to run 3rd party if he doesn't pick up the republican nomination?

i assume he hasn't stated this officially...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is he going to run 3rd party if he doesn't pick up the republican nomination?

i assume he hasn't stated this officially...

 

No, but they are throwing this in his face trying to discredit his Republican nomination even further.

 

He has said that he hasn't made any decisions, I supposed it all comes down to the GOP race and how well he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed how no one will talk to him about anything related to Austrian Economics.

 

There is no way he will be able to say that he wants corporations to have even less reins in todays economic times with his "free market" without looking like he is willing to sell out the American people in favor of big business. He can try to say that it was those reins that caused this (which he will try to do), but that only goes so far when you consider that there so far has been extremely minimal repercussions for this mess. How can the regulations on business be choking them if there are no punishments??

 

I think the only reason that no one is bringing it up, is because no candidate wants tol alienate the fringe right that seems to have a chokehold on the GOP, which is why there are so many candidates in this primary that have no chance in hell of even competing in a general election.

 

I for one hope there is a serious third party candidate. They will not win, but they will split the GOP further:)

 

It still amazes me how far right every candidate is. I do not like Romney, but at least he has been smart enough not to get pulled into far right nonsense, that will stop him from winning a general election (which is the only election that matters).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noticed how no one will talk to him about anything related to Austrian Economics.

 

There is no way he will be able to say that he wants corporations to have even less reins in todays economic times with his "free market" without looking like he is willing to sell out the American people in favor of big business. He can try to say that it was those reins that caused this (which he will try to do), but that only goes so far when you consider that there so far has been extremely minimal repercussions for this mess. How can the regulations on business be choking them if there are no punishments??

 

I think the only reason that no one is bringing it up, is because no candidate wants tol alienate the fringe right that seems to have a chokehold on the GOP, which is why there are so many candidates in this primary that have no chance in hell of even competing in a general election.

 

I for one hope there is a serious third party candidate. They will not win, but they will split the GOP further:)

 

It still amazes me how far right every candidate is. I do not like Romney, but at least he has been smart enough not to get pulled into far right nonsense, that will stop him from winning a general election (which is the only election that matters).

 

It may seem that way but Ron Paul can actually articulate his economic believes even further in a 1 on 1 debate, and with Obama's track record I don't see how you can hate on what Ron Paul thinks over what Obama has actually done.

 

The problem is, people don't understand what a "free market" is, and how it works, they just think it means corruption, meanwhile the system we have now isn't a free market, it never was a free market and we'll I think it's obvious how corrupt the last few years have seemed.

 

As I say to people all the time, he is the ONLY candidate on either side that truly represents freedom. He will take most "national" issue's like Gay Marriage and Abortion and turn them over to the states so even people in those area's can feel okay about his stances, he can press Obama on his decisions and stand by his record, he is the only GOP candidate that can do all of this. Oh and best Foreign Policy platform up there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You whole post is the same old thing from everyone of his supporters. No substance. When called into doubt, bring up freedom and liberty, even though no one is arguing those points.

 

He wants to give more freedom to corporations and let them do what they think is the best for their own interests, which is to make more money. These are the same corporations that got us to where we are currently and ronnie paulie wants to give them even more freedom because he thinks that they will fix something if they are able to run wild.

 

I understand exactly what a "free market" is. What I do not think you understand is, what a "free market" will do. Which is trade your current level of freedom from being controlled by the government (incompetence) into being controlled by corporations (greed) to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone involved, to include the environment.

 

If you think that oil companies that are currently polluting the environment and ruining drinking water to make more money because it is cheaper then being responsible are operating this way because of government regulations, what do you think they would do in a free market? Especially if there are numerous different state and local laws for a pipeline that runs across the country? Do you really think they would clean up their act? Do you think that the property rights argument will stop them?

 

Most of that free market nonsense applies only to localized markets, where it may work on a very limited basis, not to large multi-national companies.

 

Say what you will, I am done with this. I have made my point and there is zero evidence that austrian economics actually would work and the main reason for that is that it seems to be the only thing in this universe that is not able to have a mathematical theory behind it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of ronnie paulie promoting the newsletter that has his name and also racist content that he says he did not write.

 

vote for ronnie paulie if you hate the diversity in America

 

Some of his cult might say that this is a smear campaign, but I say how can this be a smear campaign with ronnie paullie on video promoting this newsletter with his name and that same newsletter has printed racist bullshit??

 

Seems like a stand up honest guy to me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you actually think he's a Racist?

 

Former aide on subject.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/former-opponents-discuss-ron-paul-racist-newsletters-185747121.html

 

Some more evidence: Austin, Texas NAACP President sounding off...

 

http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/24/ron-paul-no-racist-naacp-austin-president/

 

Continue to live in fantasy land though, it's your comfort zone.

 

EDIT: I know you hate youtube, but you can just view countless amount of video's from regular people (specifically Blacks) defending him and laughing at the Media for trying to portray him as such.

 

Check this out, or ignore it, whatever I just find it funny reading your posts at this point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my concern on the issue is that Paul has not distanced himself from it, its authors, or even from racism. if this is the biggest campaign smear he's facing why is he not more vocal that this is not the case?

 

or is he? have i completely missed him doing this? (i'm okay w/ youtube links)

 

i do hope their is truth/merit to his anti-israel stance if he gets somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-There is a newsletter and mailings that have racist info in them.

-Newsletter and mailings have Ron Paul's name and sometimes his signature on them.

-Newsletters and mailings have been around for 10-30 years, depending on which ones we are talking about.

-Ron Paul says he did not write them and blames it on "ghost writers".

-Ron Paul has never really gets into who could have done this if he didn't, like he has claimed, even though they are his newsletters and mailings.

-Ron Paul is caught on video promoting these newsletters and videos.

 

Is any of this a lie??

 

At a worst, he is a closet racist. At a minimum, you can not trust anything that he says or that has his name or signature on it, since he is on video and also has his signature on all the racist bullshit. Yet he vaguely denies involvement.

 

Another thing is that he can not even sit down and honestly answer questions about this. (recent CNN walkout interview) I do not think he has ever answered honestly about these newsletters. You might say that he has years ago, but now that new info is popping up, it contradicts what he has said and he will not address these current findings.

 

Please feel free to show us all where he has addressed these newsletters and mailings which have his name on them and he has video of him promoting them. I have looked and all I can find is him talking very vaguely about it. which he seems to do about almost everyone of his talking points.

 

BTW, youtube videos of his supporters do not really represent anything about him, since any of us can make one or pay someone to make one. His video (him actually talking) promoting the newsletters speaks much more about the kind of guy he actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly haven't seen the footage that CNN released of the FULL INTERVIEW, not that trash that they put out trying to make it seem like he "stormed off" when that didn't happen at all, check that out here though (your definitely not watching this) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0 .

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewslettersFaq-Tunk#outer_page_2

 

Read this. Watch that full interview, still bang your head on the wall.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.

 

Too bad for you that his signature appears on the solicitation letter!

It could easily

have been photocopied. But suppose it wasn‟t.

So what?

Why wouldn‟t

Ron

Paul‟s name

appear on the solicitation letter?

It doesn‟t follow that

therefore

he wrote it, oranything else in the newsletters.

He‟s

someone for whom it is routine to draft and signhundreds of bills that never see the light of day. A request to ink one more piece of paperprobably would not strike him as way out of left field. Why is it so unthinkable that a full-timepolitician would have signed a letter encouraging people to subscribe to his politicalnewsletters while remaining aloof of the actual production process? You might also find Arianna

Huffington‟s signature on solicitation letters for the Huffington Post. Does that make her

personally responsible for everything inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...